“My apartheid spiel” is a naive perspective

As an Israeli who has been involved in Palestine/Israel issues for years, and who has lived on both sides of the Green Line, I find yesterday’s column by Samantha Lachman deeply naive. She saw one side of Israel: the side the government wanted her to see.

Who gets to judge whether a situation is akin to apartheid? Perhaps those who led the movements opposing it, like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who said after a visit to Palestine/Israel:

“I’ve been very distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us blacks in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about ... If apartheid ended, so can the occupation, but the moral force and international pressure will have to be just as determined. The current divestment effort is the first, though certainly not the only, necessary move in that direction.”

You’d surely argue that that’s in the West Bank. How about inside Israel?

Arabs can indeed vote, but unlike your claim, they don’t.

Roughly 10 percent of the Knesset (Israeli parliament) are from Arab (and Arab/Jewish) parties. Arabs form over 20 percent of the population. Most Arabs do not vote, as they see the entire Israeli political system as racist.

How can it be racist? Doesn’t the law say “equality?” Sure, but that’s theory. In practice, Arab municipalities receive around half the funding that Jewish ones do for education and health; it’s almost impossible to get building permits in Arab areas; and all the top jobs are held by Jews, not Arabs. The law is less of a problem than policy.

Palestinians in Israel don’t want acceptance or opportunity. They want equality and justice. They want to be seen as no worse than Jews. Those who believe that situation exists, or that Israel is in any way approaching it, are wearing rose-tinted glasses.